* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).

* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win  clearly it did not.

* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)

Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:

The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a Massachusetts moderate. The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romneys 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romneys 31%).

That said, what Im looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble:

42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008. 57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008. When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012.

Youd think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didnt. 78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasnt nearly enough.

To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldnt win.

Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008. 48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasnt enough.

Now consider this additional data:

In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.

In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.

In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this.

Of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, therefore, about 30 million (26%) were evangelicals. Of this, 21%  or about 6.4 million evangelicals  voted for Obama.

By comparison, of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, 32.5 million (26%) were evangelicals. At the time, Obama won 24% of evangelicals, or about 7.8 million people.

Whats more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls. In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic.

Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.

What does all this mean? A few observations:

During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters  they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)

There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romneys Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout.

The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls  but it did not work.

Despite Obamas pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record  a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics  Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obamas evangelical and Catholic vote.

If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals  and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states  he would have won the election handily.

It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as Americas first gay president. Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?

Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.

This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action. Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.

What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them?

This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.

That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.

We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.

None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being salt and light to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isnt a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals  a Third Great Awakening. As men and womens hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we dont see a Third Great Awakening soon, Im not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.

Anti Mormon psy op pieces were allowed to remain here on FR. I flagged a few but they were never yanked.

Some vote union over religion.

Sadly the race was within 350,000 votes. The ground game computer foul up and some 99% turnout precincts were the difference. Need to spend the 300 million on early voting. Our people turn out on game day.

The religionists are an inconsistent voting bloc anyway. Too many socialistic tendencies among many of them whom believe it’s God’s will to spread the wealth. The GOP loses more than it gains by pandering to them with hardline SoCon rhetoric.

For all Repbulicans and conservatives talk about social issues, and align them with general Judeo-Christian values, it may be that, when all is said and done, most people don’t vote their faith. That is counter intuitive for conservatives, we usually expect this of liberals, not conservatives.

Now, if christians and social conservatives don’t go to the polls, because they feel if they don’t have a perfect candidate, they will stay home, then shame on them. That’s what leaves us with a second Obama term. And you can’t tell me that a second Obama term would be better than a Romney term.

In the next four years, we can all expect to open our wallets to Obama, and expect to pay for all the things we may find religiously objectionable in Obamacare.

I heard on woman interviewed that claimed she was pro-life, but didn’t have any problem voting for Obama. It’s like well I disagree with Auschwitz, but they did build that awesome autobahn. I’m guessing those are the evangelicals showing up in the communist’s column.

12
posted on 11/09/2012 5:09:18 PM PST
by throwback
(The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)

It does not have to be fraud. I know “evangelicals” who equate government with God when it comes to social justice nor do they see the sin in wealth redistribution.

Look at the liberalism within the church itself that directly contradicts the bible. The term evangelical is meaningless now - the range of church doctrines varies from the far left - black liberation theology - to churches that are strictly based on biblical principles without the fluff. In between, you have the charming prosperity doctrine churches, the new age churches, and lots of others that don’t resemble my church.

It does not surprise me that many people who enter a building on Sunday voted for Obama. I am not surprised at all.

What I’d like to know is why can’t the GOP seem to have a hodge podge big tent coalition like the Dems seem to maintain. Evangelicals and country club Republicans managed to co exist during the Reagan years.

Total crap. But desperate people have to find someone to blame. And the list is endless: Christie, Libertarians, Birthers, Dems who stole 5-10 million of our votes, Christians, Dick Morris and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

OK, maybe I made that last one up. But can anyone take a breath and think clearly for one moment. And maybe blame the GOP who conspiired to give us Mittens?

26
posted on 11/09/2012 5:19:00 PM PST
by Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)

The devil has fooled many into believing that they are Christians, but they are not.

You are correct sir. As an Evangelical Christian, I believe if these people voted for Obozo, they do not know the Lord, or they do not know the issues, and if they do not know the issues, they need to get their heads out of the sand.

31
posted on 11/09/2012 5:24:27 PM PST
by Mark17
(California, where English is a foreign language)

True. The word "evangelical" has come to be meaningless in that many theological liberals freely use it. Theological liberalism inevitably leads to political liberalism. The term "evangelical" technically means: "one who tells the good news". It's easy to see how both liberals and conservatives could find ways to argue they are doing just that.

And then there are those bible conservative Christians who will say that voting for a guy who is for the working man does not mean that you believe his other policies. That is real common among multi-generational democratic families.

36
posted on 11/09/2012 5:27:22 PM PST
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)

Romney ignored the base for his presidential run on things he said 15 years ago when running in MA?

Uh...right.

Truth is...Romney directly addressed the concerns of his base when he ran for President. He appointed almost as conservative a VP as possible to allay those concerns and as candidate for President voiced support for conservative positions.

His fiscal policies were excellent and his debate performances were so stellar he even won the vote of one of his most outspoken critics, the owner of this forum. But you can never please everyone and the back-seat drivers will always, always be there.

I think the GOP alienates more voters than it gains by trying to appeal to ‘Evangelicals’. It’s perceived as a Theocracy party, and in some sense that isn’t wholly inaccurate considering how close Santorum came to winning the primaries.

The majority of Republican voters are Protestants of one kind or the other. They are the party. If you don’t care for Protestants in your party you can become a Democrat. They are dominated by Godless, soulless, alcoholic reprobates who molest children.

I'm certainly no Mormon (it is a cult), but Romney should have exposed Obama for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda condoning Muslim that he is. That would have made the difference for the uninformed Evangelical voters.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.